You seem to be more concerend about how the opinions of other effect you.

If people are allowed to use blinking gizmos as images of worship or to define the way they feel about their faith than so-be-it.

If the fathers of the Church allow these behaviors than who am I or anyone else to say otherwise?It-is what-it-is.

I see the blond haired, blue eyed, lilly white euro-centric Icons which are produced by the RCC. I also see the scrawny, human destruct of agony and despair reeling in ghastly posture in the grotesque christ like characturizations produced and distibuted by protestants all being used by the Orthodox Church. These images do not teach the word in purity but are socio-political / religio in intent.

My point to you is:Blinking gizmos are not Icons and should not be used as the center of devine worship or an expression of the holy faith. This is dagerous and risky behavior. Who know where it will lead?

The Church has established all the standards long ago. Blinking lights are not Orthodox.

It is that simple.

Iconograhpy is not easy to understand. I can assure you that It is not the open ended liberalism freedom of expression that you seem to think it is.

Like a Russian Iconographer of our era recently stated: "An Icon is not a picture or a decoration to be admired. It is not to be seen in the eye of the beholder, it is not art. It is the holiness, the truth, the expression of the ineffable word of God.... The true Icon is not painted it is written".

I gasped when I read that.

You can be sure that this Russian would also object to electronic "icons" that blink. As it is this Russian would not understand how you and I worship in chuches with pews. They stand at all times.

You have allot to learn about Icons and what they are to us.

Study my brother.....study!

by the way , this is not icon this is a picture for a bishop out the church what is the problem then !!

Logged

We believe that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Logos, is perfect in His Divinity and perfect in His Humanity. He made His Humanity One with His Divinity without Mixture, nor Mingling, nor Confusion. we Anathematize the Doctrines of both Nestorius and Eutyches

by the way , this is not icon this is a picture for a bishop out the church what is the problem then !!

We've already established that it's not an icon; that it is a mere commemorative. The objections to the concept--even if it is not a concept of any significance to anyone, and in particular the Coptic Orthodox Church--are nonetheless quite irrational.

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

I could not help however but think that thier must be some other tradition for the children that provides them with a connection to thier own Coptic tradition that would make even a much greater impression not only of the the faith but also of the ancient heritage of the people and the Coptic faith.

I hope you understand my point.

It is fine to use the new modern things of today.

But look around...

Are we starting to look like protestants and RCs?

Thats O.K. if this is the case. (note that they are not trying to look Orthodox)

If this picture is some how connected to a bishop than I must point out that it is not good Orthodoxy. Our Church fathers must be respected with the highest honor.

First of all, the "Orthodoxy" of a thing and the "respectfulness" of a thing, are two different issues. We have already established that this matter has nothing to do with Orthodoxy, and if you wish to maintain that it does then I am still waiting for you to present the basis of that belief.

Second of all, "respect" is a very subjective concept, the individual's understand of which is largely shaped by that individual's cultural and social context. His Grace Abba Mina was/is a most respected figure at St. Mina's Monastery; he was/is known to be a holy man who communicated with the Saints, in partiuclar the late Patriarch His Holiness Pope Kyrillos VI and St. Mina. The commemorative serves the purpose of honouring his memory, nothing more and nothing less.

Quote

None of us are perfect but; I have found so much great detail to "pure" Orthodoxy among the Coptic.

But lately it seems that things are changing in these small ways among the faithful.

I have read many great threads on this forum exposing the absurdity of those who seem to think that "pure Orthodoxy" is contingent upon "super-correctness". You might want to read up on them. You think you are arguing in favour of "pure Orthodoxy", whereas I think the very nature and focus of your arguments misunderstand the real essence of Orthodoxy.

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Therefore, the leaders of the Early Church permitted the use ofreligious pictures (icons) because the people were not able to assimilateChristianity and its doctrine unaided by visual means. Therefore, thesepresentations aided the faithful in understanding the new religion and, atsame time, illustrated it.

In conclusion, icons in the Orthodox tradition are notto be taken as art forart's sake but rather, they are to be used as windows into spiritual world,designed to help us achieve a prayerful mind set and lead us into a life ofprayer and contemplation. The interested reader might want to check the iconsscanned and stored in Copt-Net Archives.

The above are just a small sample of what the Coptic Church teaches and you see that the image written (painted) in the Icons are to be venerated for worship. The Icon itself is NOT to to be used as an object of worship or a decoration for arts sake. Thus the blinking lights can imply that the Icon itself 'in-the-physical' has some center of attention or significance even though this may not be intended and thus goes against the central purpose of 'why' we use Icons in the Orthodox Church.

The way the Icon was used for father Mina was understandable but rather liberal. The Coptic Church nor the Orthodox Church in general teach that the holy images can be used the way 'we want'. such as adding blinking lights.

We have to be careful with the Holiness of the Orthodox tradition ..we must protect its innocence and holy intent. Doing this leaves us little room for levity or creativity.

I think one of EA's points was that this was not an icon, since it was not in a church or set up for veneration. Therefore, since it is not an icon, the normal rules regarding how icons are made (written) do not necessarily apply.

An interesting question which comes of this is what are the rules (if any) for religious images which are not in a church or intended for veneration.

For example, I know both Coptic Orthodox Christians and Armenian Orthodox Christians who have statues of the Mother of God in their gardens outside their homes. These statues are not in their prayer corners in their homes where they pray. Is this, however, a good practice? Statues, of course, are not allowed in a church, and are not to be venerated. But should they be allowed in a garden, or some other place where they are not venerated? Personally, I think "Mary gardens" are sweet, but I wonder if it is proper for an Orthodox Christian.

Sorry to redirect the topic, but this is something I always wondered about and this seems somewhat related to the topic.

My main concern is how we treat the holy things that are FOR veneration. Thiings connected to or related to worship should not be used in any other way.

It also concerns me that so many of us see the "Church" and our relationship to it as this multi - milion dollar building down the street with an Alter inside and all other vessels of the church and when we are in it we are in the "Church" and when we leave we are "outside" the Church.

This thinking is incorrect and not Orthodox.

Orthodox Christians are always inside the Church. WE are what the Church is right.

What is correct is: What is "in" the Church is "in" you. The "Church" ( the sanctuary is the center of worship and the meaning of our faith).

If The Chuirch does not have pagan idols in it why would you leave each day to go home to a pagan idol where you live?

If thier is no fornication, cursing or unclean behavior inside the church why would you go home to all these things..

You (your life) and your home are extentions of the Church. What you see in Church is what you should see in your life and your home. If you see things contrary at home and in your life when compared to the church than you are not ONE with what your Church.

Statues are for idol worshippers period..

It does not matter how holy the idolic image may be. It is a graven image and God says donot worship or even look toward a graven image. Statues are graven images.

I know people who do this as well who are orthodox. Its sad.

The excuses that make are very colorful and logical. Which only makes me feel that much more sad for them since no matter what a graven image of christ or the virgin mary or whoever is still a graven image.

Some people do not realise or care about the damage they cause to themselves when they do things without guidance.

If the Church celebrates with statues then I would expect the people to follow this at home. If It does not than I wouild expect that the peole would avoid this at hoem as well.

I know the Coptic Church's position on Iconography sufficiently well. You highlight the sentence from that article regarding the fact Icons do not serve an aesthetic purpose, yet none of my arguments have presumed such to be the case.

It seems like we're running around in circles. This debate is far past its expiry date in my opinion, so unless anyone has any fresh perspective to offer i'm finished here.

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

If you look back at your posts your point seems to be clear that: The Icon used was not for divine worship but simply to place at a location set up to commemorate the Bishops memory you said: "The commemorative serves the purpose of honouring his memory, nothing more and nothing less".

My last post on this matter was in response to your request to provide basis for my concerns and opinions. Which I found on a Coptic website. The excerpts I clipped in the post clearly demostrate and support what my point has been all along which is again..." Icons are for divine worship only".

I do not see where the debate is? Especially since you say that you are well aware of what the Coptic teachings are on Iconography. If you are aware then you can see that Icons are for divine worshiop only.

The way the blinking Icon (although with good intention) is being used is NOT for "divine worship". The blinking lights are a artful enhancement which does not add to the Iconographical intention; since ALL Icons preach a message. The Blinking lights are irrelevant having no ties to the Holy message of the Icon but has the tendency (real or imagined) to reduce the Icons purity (Its Holy Orthodoxy) do to the artful enhancement. Proof of this is the posts you have encountered on this forum inlcuding mine.

If you choose to withdraw here than thats your poragotive.

I have made a solid case here which is a benefit to both of us; indeed all of us.

I think one of EA's points was that this was not an icon, since it was not in a church or set up for veneration. Therefore, since it is not an icon, the normal rules regarding how icons are made (written) do not necessarily apply.

An interesting question which comes of this is what are the rules (if any) for religious images which are not in a church or intended for veneration.

For example, I know both Coptic Orthodox Christians and Armenian Orthodox Christians who have statues of the Mother of God in their gardens outside their homes. These statues are not in their prayer corners in their homes where they pray. Is this, however, a good practice? Statues, of course, are not allowed in a church, and are not to be venerated. But should they be allowed in a garden, or some other place where they are not venerated? Personally, I think "Mary gardens" are sweet, but I wonder if it is proper for an Orthodox Christian.

Sorry to redirect the topic, but this is something I always wondered about and this seems somewhat related to the topic.

You seriously believe that it is wrong to venerate statues but that it is ok to venerate icons? This seems inconsistant.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

You seriously believe that it is wrong to venerate statues but that it is ok to venerate icons? This seems inconsistant.

Yes, the use of statues for veneration is wrong (I thought at one time I remember reading it was condemned by an Ecumenical Council, but I'd have to check to be sure on this, so don't quote me on it). There is a deeper meaning behind Icons than statues, of which I really don't understand fully myself, but I'm sure someone on here better than I could explain the true meaning of Icons (they are more than just pretty paintings that represent a holy figure).

EDIT: I think the statues were indeed banned by the 7th Ecumenical Council, as I found this from a Greek Orthodox parish website: "The practice of keeping the Holy Icons eventually lead to great controversy in the Church. In the Eighth Century a group called the Iconoclasts, under pressure from the encroaching Turks made a move to have the Holy Icons banned and destroyed, causing a great division amongst the Christian Church. This controversy led to the convening of the 7th Ecumenical Council in 787. That Synod decreed that the Holy Icons are to be used to render honor (veneration) to the person honored, but not worship, since worship is due God alone. This Ecumenical decision is the source of the annual celebration of the Triumph of Orthodoxy on the First Sunday of Great Lent. At the same synod, the use of statues, the use of which had become perverted over time, was banned."

I am not an authority on anything not to mention Icons; but I have offered on this thread some aspects of my research and study on this subject. It may help if you go back to the beginning and read the posts. You may gain some valuable insights or be directed to where you need to be in your thinking as to what an Icon is and when and how it to be used.

Many of us beleive that we can use Icons and Holy images (not statues) any way we want if we feel that the purpose is good. This is right in theory and logic. But wrong in that the Icon and Holy image has a specific place in the Holy faith like the liturgy and the reading of the Holy Gosple and the Holy communion.

All things have order in the Holy Church.

Imagine the sun rising in the west sometimes and setting in the north sometimes. This is chaos. LIfe would not be sustainable.

Well the Holy Orthodox Church has order and this order is Holy, Universal and Apostolic in the Lord.We are hinged to it till Christs returns.

Icons and thier Holy images are Holy objects for veneration and worship of the one true God alone. Not artful emblishments for walls, clothing, T-shirts, book covers or any other area that is not the center of divine worship of God. I know you have seen Icons or Holy images on books published by bishops and priests and on church fund raising material etc. I have to. I am guilty of using Iconigraphical or Holy images on articles myself. It is the condition of our current age of publishing, marketing and the need to make OUR faith known and recognizeable; to distinguish us. In these times this is vastly important. But this is not good Orthodoxy. I have a problem with where to and how to treat a book, t-shirt, article with a Holy image on it. Do I put the book down with all other books? do I stack it up out of view? Do I wash the t-shirt with the image of the Virgin Mary Mother God on it with my underwear and other washables? Or do I wash it alone in holy water? etc.

Things to think about?

I have seen Icons used in ways among the members of my own tradition (The Ethiopian Church) which is completely objectionable.

Also and of much importance is HOW the Icon is made. The Iconographical tradition varies in ways among the various traditions but it is standard to maintain the proper geometry or sacred geometry. Also the Icon must exhibit truth and only the truth. It must be the facts of scripture and the word of God that is ingrained in the image. You should study this area.

The Icon must be commissioned by a bishop or parish priest before it is started and blessed by them before it is finished and enters the church or is hung anywhere on church property. That does inlcude the homes of all church members. Is not your property Gods property? Or is your property held back from God for your own use? You decide. The Church teaches that our very lives are Gods property...Amen; so of course the domicile that we live in is His....correct? I hope so.

So any Icon that is not commissioned for production and approved for use by the Church (bishop or priest) is not an Icon. It is a picture and as such should not be used in or around the faithful (dead or alive) of the Holy Church for any purpose. To do so is an aggressive act of defiance against the established order which is administered by the priests ( If a priest permits the use of a non-commissioned work then he is resposible for the image and what it does to others who view it.. good or bad). Just because a person feels that they are doing something good and means good does not change the fact that they are not following sound Orthodoxy when they take it upon themselves to produce their own versions or styles of Icons.

This is my brief explanation.

Challenge the words I have put here. Speak to any Orthodox priest and compare. I will gladly except any correction.

As Orthodox Clergy we are to blame for allowing Holy images to be used by the members the way they want for so long without teaching what these Holy images are reserved for.

I took a look at my library of Orthodox books and articles. I just noticed that books produced by the Coptic Church have no Holy Iconographial images on them. The Ethiopian or Syrian books niether. I have a prayer book used i the Ethiopian Church called the Wadasseh Mareyam (Salutations to the mother of God) whch ahs an Icon of the Virgin Mary on the cover. Interesting this book although the content is that which is found in Church books was compiled and produce by laymen.

I failed to notice this before.

Books published by Russian and Greek Churches that I have has Iconographical or Holy images on the covers.

Yes, the use of statues for veneration is wrong (I thought at one time I remember reading it was condemned by an Ecumenical Council, but I'd have to check to be sure on this, so don't quote me on it). There is a deeper meaning behind Icons than statues, of which I really don't understand fully myself, but I'm sure someone on here better than I could explain the true meaning of Icons (they are more than just pretty paintings that represent a holy figure).

EDIT: I think the statues were indeed banned by the 7th Ecumenical Council, as I found this from a Greek Orthodox parish website: "The practice of keeping the Holy Icons eventually lead to great controversy in the Church. In the Eighth Century a group called the Iconoclasts, under pressure from the encroaching Turks made a move to have the Holy Icons banned and destroyed, causing a great division amongst the Christian Church. This controversy led to the convening of the 7th Ecumenical Council in 787. That Synod decreed that the Holy Icons are to be used to render honor (veneration) to the person honored, but not worship, since worship is due God alone. This Ecumenical decision is the source of the annual celebration of the Triumph of Orthodoxy on the First Sunday of Great Lent. At the same synod, the use of statues, the use of which had become perverted over time, was banned."

Can you please provide a quote from the ecumenical council itself? I already new about he iconoclast controversy btw, but thank you for sharing.

« Last Edit: November 17, 2006, 05:11:02 PM by Papist »

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.